1. Read each situation. Write whether a bill of attainder, an ex post facto law, or a writ of habeas corpus woul prevent the situation from happening.
A. ______________ shortly after video cameras were invented, a man evident aped a rock concrete. Years later this was declared illegal. The tape of the concert was recently found in men house and he was arrested.
B._______________ a man was accused of a crime. After he was imprisoned, his house and personal property were taken away as punishment before his trial.
C. ______________ a women was caught while commenting a crime. Since there is no doubt that she is gultiy, congress is sending her to prison without a trial.
2. The farmer of the constitution were not always specific about the powers granted to congress or the president. Explain why this can be both helpful and problematic.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
aped a rock concrete. ??
found in men house and he ??
caught while commenting a crime??
farmer of the constitution were??
I don't get it
I don't get it, either. How can one ape a concrete rock? What is a men house? The woman was caught commenting on a crime? Constitutions are farmed?
I don't get it either.
What is a rock concrete? How do you ape it?
How do you comment a crime?
What is a farmer of the constitution?
You have to write whether it is bill of attainder or habeas corpus that would prevent the situation form happening
Stop! Correct your typos before you post anything else!
What's that suppose to mean??
I apologize of bothering you I got the answer and I apologize again
1.
A. A bill of attainder would prevent the situation from happening. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares a person or group of people guilty of a crime without a trial. In this situation, if the man was arrested and punished without a trial, it would violate the protection against bills of attainder.
B. A writ of habeas corpus would prevent the situation from happening. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order that requires a person who has been detained to be brought before a court to determine if their imprisonment is lawful. In this situation, taking away the man's property before his trial would violate his right to a writ of habeas corpus.
C. An ex post facto law would prevent the situation from happening. An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively criminalizes an action that was legal at the time it was committed. In this situation, if the woman is being sent to prison without a trial based on a law that was created after the crime was committed, it would violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws.
2. The lack of specificity in the powers granted to Congress or the president in the Constitution can be both helpful and problematic.
Helpful: The lack of specificity allows for flexibility and adaptability. It enables Congress and the president to address new and unforeseen circumstances that were not present when the Constitution was written. This flexibility allows for the government to evolve and respond to the needs and challenges of a changing society.
Problematic: The lack of specificity can also lead to interpretational disputes and potential abuses of power. Different individuals or branches of the government may have different interpretations of the Constitution, leading to conflicts and legal challenges. It can also create a situation where certain powers are assumed or overstepped due to the absence of clear boundaries, potentially violating the principles of checks and balances.
Overall, it is important to strike a balance between providing enough guidance in the Constitution to ensure stability and consistency, while also allowing for flexibility to accommodate the changing needs of society.